Period and carry-over effects and follow-up results
Statistical analyses did not reveal significant period effects.
Against the background of limited statistical power, this
indicates that the general state of the participants during
the intervention did not considerably change. As all participants
were in a chronic stage of their iSCI, this result
was anticipated.
Statistically, we could also not detect any carry-over or
treatment by period interaction. This means that either
there is no carry-over, which is very unlikely since the
intermediate measurement results differed from baseline
measurement results, meaning that “baseline” values before
the second intervention were different from baseline
measures before the first intervention; or it means that
carry-over was comparable for both interventions, and,
therefore, insignificant for the interpretation of the achieved
results.
The results of the follow-up measurement were doubleedged.
On the one hand, there were only a few outcome
measures that improved over the course of the whole
study (from baseline to follow-up). On the other hand, no
outcome measure got worse from the end of interventions
to follow-up. This would be especially valuable for those
outcome measures that improved during the training
phase, which are outcomes reflecting increased motor
capacity and performance (10MWT at preferred speed,
LEMS and SCIM). However, the inability to detect clear
differences could be due to the low power of this study.
Please note that the follow-up results do not allow a differentiation
between the 2 interventions.
Period and carry-over effects and follow-up resultsStatistical analyses did not reveal significant period effects.Against the background of limited statistical power, thisindicates that the general state of the participants duringthe intervention did not considerably change. As all participantswere in a chronic stage of their iSCI, this resultwas anticipated.Statistically, we could also not detect any carry-over ortreatment by period interaction. This means that eitherthere is no carry-over, which is very unlikely since theintermediate measurement results differed from baselinemeasurement results, meaning that “baseline” values beforethe second intervention were different from baselinemeasures before the first intervention; or it means thatcarry-over was comparable for both interventions, and,therefore, insignificant for the interpretation of the achievedresults.The results of the follow-up measurement were doubleedged.On the one hand, there were only a few outcomemeasures that improved over the course of the wholestudy (from baseline to follow-up). On the other hand, nooutcome measure got worse from the end of interventionsto follow-up. This would be especially valuable for thoseoutcome measures that improved during the trainingphase, which are outcomes reflecting increased motorcapacity and performance (10MWT at preferred speed,LEMS and SCIM). However, the inability to detect cleardifferences could be due to the low power of this study.Please note that the follow-up results do not allow a differentiationbetween the 2 interventions.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
